LETTERS FROM PARIS
449
ruinous, hence France cannot follow American policy unconditionally.
To this, Gilson added a series of polemical points, some good and some
bad, but in any case not connected by a consistent theory.
As for Beuve Mery, he is both less querulous and more aware of
the gener al aspects of the situation
than
Gilson. In an article published
last December, he maintained that from the point of view of the West,
the cold war can only have a defensive character, since the West has
no ideology to impose on anybody, but simply wants to defend its demo–
cratic institutions against armed totalitarianism. This defensive character,
Beuve Mery argued, requires defensive tactics. In other words, Europe
cannot disarm the Communist fifth column and face the chaos of a
Third World War except in the case of an open armed aggression on the
part of Stalin. To risk global war for Korea, or for German rearmament,
or simply for fear of "another Munich" would be folly, according to the
editor of
L e monde.
To dismiss such arguments by simply classifying them as "defeatist"
is frivolous. Insofar as this kind of criticism makes sense, it must be
met, especially since it undoubtedly expresses a state of mind which is
widespread. What can legitimately be opposed to Gilson's and Beuve
Mery's arguments is not the fact that they are "demoralizing," but that
they leave too much out of the picture, namely not only France's and
Europe's dependence on America, but their divisions and their internal
disorder.
If,
by a miracle, a united Western Europe came into being
tomorrow this would represent such a radical change for the better
in
the general situation that the question of "neutrality" would simply
disappear, together with the mood of helplessness that creates it. Eur–
ope, that is, would have a policy. But as long as Europe remains in the
present sad state, "neutrality" is both another name for impotence,
and a fantastic dream.
"Neutrality" reveals its real character as a substitute for internal
p0-
litical life in the case of Claude Bourdet and his weekly,
L'obse)1vateuT.
This paper is a sorry mixture of hesitant anti-Communism, Trotskyist
dogmatism, and fellow traveling. It has a circulation of 20,000 copies,
which means a considerable audience. Polemics aside, the position of
Claude Bourdet on neutralism is as follows: by declaring ourselves
neutralists (that is, opposed to American imperialism) we will put
Stalinism on the spot; by putting Stalinism on the spot, we will provoke
a kind of generalized Titoism out of which a new European Left will be
born. Neutralism moreover implies the refusal to rearm (except on such
a scale as Switzerland), the liquidation of colonial liabilities, and, of
course, a planned economy.
